TGIF: Warm Individualism or Cold Collectivism?

Newly inaugurated New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani promises to "replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism."

Funny that he chose those words.

In Europe, where collectivist anti-fossil-fuels "green" policies have been enacted in the name of combating a conjured-up climate emergency, many people get dangerously cold in the winter. So far, this hasn't happened on a large scale in America, where the climate collectivists have not been as adept in imposing their lethal program as their European counterparts. Freer markets keep people warmer in winter.

Zero-sum thinking, which is at the heart of socialism, also has a knack for creating a frigid attitude toward one's fellow man. When you believe that one person's gain is another's, perhaps your loss, you don't view your successful neighbor with warmth. The victims of Stalin's collectivist famine in Ukraine in the 1930s, some of whom were driven to cannibalism to survive, probably did not regard their neighbors or even their family members benevolently. Envy, suspicion, and hostility were characteristic of other places where ostensibly well-meaning rulers condemned selfishness and imposed various forms of collectivism. The death toll beggars belief. Some remain in denial about it. We can be certain that those catastrophes did not befall those tens of millions of innocent victims because they were deprived of a chance to vote on which clueless bureaucrats would administer society's central plan, as Mamdani and his "democratic" socialist followers suggest.

On the other hand, individualism in ethics and politics fosters benevolence—warmth—among individuals, who, mindful of their own rights and struggles to achieve values, respect the rights and struggles of others. Solidarity among individualists is no more a contradiction than the solidarity of members of a jazz band. 

Note that Mamdani uses the adjective rugged. Why? It is part of the ages-old smear campaign against the "selfish" pursuit of happiness. Jefferson's Locke-inspired inclusion of that phrase in the Declaration of Independence did not, unfortunately, admit egoism back into respectability. (It had some respectability in ancient Greece.)

Capitalism's detractors deploy the adjective rugged to suggest a system of myopic and short-sighted persons "greedily" stepping on and over one another in a mad free-for-all grab for material wealth. But aside from a relative few, that's not what typically happens when people are free. They quickly observe the gains from trade, the division of labor, and other market-based social cooperation, such as partnerships and corporations. (Ludwig von Mises nearly titled Human Action, his magnum opus, Social Cooperation.)

The benefits of free exchange to mutual advantage—win-win—were too obvious to ignore. The unprecedented and enduring increase in per-capita wealth that began around 1800 in the West was blindingly clear to all who were not determined to pretend it was not occurring. But what Deirdre McCloskey calls "the Great Enrichment" had another payoff besides hitherto-unknown widespread affluence: the fostering of benevolence. The gains from trade had to foster a goodwill that went beyond "mere" justice. Adam Smith famously pointed out that in the marketplace, one best serves one's own interests by attending to the interests of others. Such attention inevitably fosters warm acquaintanceships, friendships, and much more. (On the relationship between egoism and goodwill, see David Kelley's Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence.)

Capitalism's detractors hate that feature of the marketplace. In effect, they say, "That doesn't count as benevolence because it's done out of self-regard!" How silly. How childish. What could be more worthwhile than a social arrangement in which the interests of diverse individuals—each with his or her own dreams,  aspirations, and values— fundamentally align? It's an arrangement in which, unlike in the animal kingdom, the arena of competition is not consumption, but production. Consequently, the limits of nature's scarcity have been progressively loosened to a point where most of the eight billion people alive today live better than the one billion lived in 1800. (The lagging remainder continues to be victimized by collectivism. Liberalism has yet to come to town.)

You have some studying to do, Mr. Mayor. Too bad you didn't do it before embarking on your political career. Lives would have been spared.

TGIF: Socialism with a Fig Leaf

What work does democratic perform in the phrase democratic socialism? It's a fig leaf intended to conceal what would presumably be repugnant to most people: the coercive regimentation inherent in socialism, whether international (Marxist) or national (fascist).

Socialism has a nasty record dating back to 1917, so socialists have felt compelled to clean up its image. Democracy is supposed to do the cleaning up. But does it? Could it?

Before we get to that, we should remind ourselves that no single conception of socialism exists. In one version, socialism denotes central economic planning, the top-down command economy. However, other socialists envision a collection of operations governed locally and democratically by workers, perhaps with input from other so-called stakeholders. That used to be called syndicalism.

These visions do not blend readily. If each firm, factory, and farm is run by its workers, who have seized it from the creator/owner, whence the central plan?

In the market, individual productive entities do not exist in a vacuum. They buy and sell along a vertical structure of production ranging from extraction to retail. For example, a steel processor buys iron ore from a mining company and sells its products to manufacturers of producer and consumer goods. Global supply chains are so complex that no one could grasp the whole. Conditions and prices often change, requiring flexibility, foresight, intuition, improvisation—in a word, entrepreneurship. And don't get me started on transportation. Raw materials and semifinished products must move expeditiously from one place to another, often over long distances, in bad weather as well as good. Business is the original worldwide web. (See Leonard E. Read's "I, Pencil.")

Thus, coordination is indispensable if billions of people with diverse needs and tastes are to have access to the most goods at the lowest possible expenditure. The more that scarce resources are economized, the more stuff we can have. How can the coordination of diverse plans be achieved? Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek, along with other sound economists, long ago demonstrated that what permits coordination is the market—that is, the price system and its institutional requirements. Prices are constantly updated guides to producer and consumer action, carrying critical, dispersed, and often unarticulated information about supply and demand. Prices are not magic. They require 1) private property in the factors of production and consumer goods, 2) markets, in which unencumbered trade of private property can take place, and 3) money, a medium of exchange, the less subject to political manipulation the better. Without these things, economic calculation, coordination (mostly with strangers), and general prosperity cannot take place.

That's how it works in a market economy, even a government-hampered one such as ours. How could this seeming miracle be accomplished under socialism, which is hostile to the market and its requirements?

A central planning board, nominally acting on behalf of society, would presumably have the power to issue orders to its personnel; everyone would be a state employee. Well, it could try, but the results would be a disaster, as history shows, because of the aforementioned coordination and knowledge problem (and incentive problem) long documented by economists and economic historians. Getting to vote for the members of the planning board, which wouldn't last long even if it began that way, could not save the system.

What about an "economy" of autonomous democratic plants, offices, and farms? We can imagine an answer. First, at the lowest level, the workers (and perhaps other stakeholders) would vote not only for their managers, but also for representatives to a council of firms at the next level up. In turn, the members of that council would vote for delegates to an ever-higher council, and so on until the pinnacle is reached, where a comprehensive plan would be promulgated and then imposed.

How could it work otherwise? If it sounds rigidly hierarchical, that's because it is. But things could hardly be expected to go smoothly. Where does the information that market prices convey come from under socialism? Moreover, even if everyone in society wants some kind of central plan, the odds of everyone wanting the same plan are precisely zero. And if everything is to be decided by majority rule—we're talking about democracy, right?—there will be no avoiding election campaigns for people and plans, campaign promises, and dubious efforts to convince voters to a point of view. In other words, there will be no escaping "the manufacture of consent," the essence of the democratic procedure, which self-styled dissidents condemn today. Ironic.

Such an arrangement has no prospect of creating or sustaining a modern industrial economy that could properly cater to billions of people worldwide.

That's the economics of the matter. The descriptor democratic before socialism, remember, is to give state regimentation a smiling face. Being able to vote within a socialist system is supposed to make all the difference. But having a mere one vote—when (at best) your whole life is to be subordinated to majority rule—is nothing compared to the sovereignty one has in the unhampered competitive market, or even in today's sea of government intervention. Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's signature theme of dignity through pervasive democracy is exposed as so much snake oil.

The idea that the key to dignity and liberty is voting on everything was stripped of its romance by the 19th-century Swiss/French classical liberal Benjamin Constant (1767-1830) in his must-read essay, "The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns (1819)." His title is self-explanatory. Here's how Constant described the modern notion of liberty:

For each [person] it is the right to be subjected only to the laws, and to be neither arrested, detained, put to death or maltreated in any way by the arbitrary will of one or more individuals. It is the right of everyone to express their opinion, choose a profession and practice it, to dispose of property, and even to abuse it; to come and go without permission, and without having to account for their motives or undertakings. It is everyone’s right to associate with other individuals, either to discuss their interests, or to profess the religion which they and their associates prefer, or even simply to occupy their days or hours in a way which is most compatible with their inclinations or whims. Finally it is everyone’s right to exercise some influence on the administration of the government, either by electing all or particular officials, or through representations, petitions, demands to which the authorities are more or less compelled to pay heed.

Yes, Constant included democratic participation in his description. But note that he put it last. The rights that he lists first, if respected, would limit what the voting public, acting as the state, could do to the individual. (Keeping the system limited is the problem that has proved insurmountable. That's why the state must go.) Democratic socialism could not be expected to observe limits. How could it? It's touted as rational social engineering.

What about the ancient idea of liberty?

[It] consisted in exercising collectively, but directly, several parts of the complete sovereignty; in deliberating, in the public square, over war and peace; in forming alliances with foreign governments; in voting laws, in pronouncing judgments; in examining the accounts, the acts, the stewardship of the magistrates; in calling them to appear in front of the assembled people, in accusing, condemning or absolving them.

Constant emphasized the narrowness of the ancients’ notion of liberty: “[T]hey admitted as compatible with this collective freedom the complete subjection of the individual to the authority of the community.... All private actions were submitted to a severe surveillance. No importance was given to individual independence, neither in relation to opinions, nor to labor, nor, above all, to religion.” (Emphasis added.)

Isn't having one vote real power? Constant said no. "Lost in the multitude, the individual can almost never perceive the influence he exercises," he wrote. Can you think of one election whose outcome would have changed had you done something different on election day?

We can see that Zohran Mamdani and his fellow democratic socialists, like the conservative populists, reject liberal modernity and the individual freedom it delivered. They may style themselves "postmodernists," but in fact they are reactionaries.

(For a full discussion of democratic socialism, see Stephen Hicks's Open College podcast, episode 36, "Democratic Socialism for Beginners.")

TGIF: Envy, Ignorance, Barbarism Triumph in New York

Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani's mayoral victory in New York City is a triumph of moral barbarism, economic illiteracy, illogic, and just plain envy. Mamdani's campaign had a double pitch: billionaires should not exist, and "the people" deserve free stuff.

At first I thought his supporters did not understand the old free-market meme, TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Nature provides only raw materials, which are useless in their original state. Ingenuity turns them into resources. But then I realized that while Mamdani used the word free, he also said he would get the money for the free stuff by further taxing the rich. The people who voted for him heard that, so they couldn't have thought that bus rides, daycare, and whatever else he has plans for would really be free—just free to them.

The demand that other people should pay—whether they want to or not, under threat of imprisonment—for what you want is monstrous on many levels. The economic harm from the variants of this demand has been documented theoretically and empirically many times over many years. You can look it up. Begin with Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. Then read up on the Soviet Union, pre-1979 China, pre-1991 India, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.

Like the laws of physics, the laws of human action (economics) cannot be repealed; if they are ignored, the consequences are catastrophic, especially for the most vulnerable, who are the ostensibly intended beneficiaries of giveaways. When bus rides are free, how long will it be before civilized people find them unusable? When rents are frozen, which Mamdani's supporters robotically demand, how long before apartments deteriorate even further or are taken off the market?

When the state forces other people to pay for what you want, that's slavery. Mamdani and his ilk insist on the right to medical care, housing, education, "affordable" groceries, etc. But how can such rights exist? Each of those services must be provided by individuals. Don't they have the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness? If A has a right to B's labor or the fruits thereof, then B must be A's slave. I thought good people were against slavery. Did I miss the memo?

Ayn Rand taught us that people's extraordinary achievements and resulting financial success do not justify declaring open season on them. They have the same rights as those who achieve less or nothing at all. Treating them as sacrificial animals is unjust (and self-defeating). Great producers of wealth have no duty to serve those who produce little or nothing, just as no one has a duty to serve the great producers. Each life is an end in itself requiring no justification. Respecting all people's rights, that is, living by reason not force, is constitutive of the self-interested life. (Selfishness, as most people use that word, is actually myopia, that is, under-concern, not over-concern, with self.) The code of self-sacrifice, as Rand pointed out, is incoherent because if applied universally, no one would be entitled to receive the booty. In practice, when someone preaches self-sacrifice, she said, someone is planning on collecting the sacrifices..

The oppressive bigotry against the "rich" is unseemly because it is a resentment of achievement in itself. The exploitation claim is long-demolished nonsense. (Making a fortune off the taxpayers is another kettle of fish.) Moreover, it ought to be obvious that punishing people for their success will discourage the thought and effort that make success possible. Incentives matter. Considering that innovators earn only a small fraction of the value that they make possible for others, how does punishing success help the people Mamdani says he cares about? Thanks to innovators—in the technological and management senses—the "poorest" Americans are actually among the richest people who ever walked the earth. Extreme poverty has been plummeting for decades. The rest of the world has been catching up with the bourgeois West thanks to technology, increasing liberty, and global trade. What has Mamdani and the Democratic Socialists of America done to benefit anyone?

A final word about that qualifier democratic in "democratic socialism." It is meant to dupe the naive; that is, it is intended to dissociate socialism from the Marx-inspired tyrannies that produced a hundred million corpses beginning in 1917. Communist East Germany was officially the German Democratic Republic, just as communist North Korea is the Democratic Republic of Korea.

That this PR trick fools anyone anymore is hard to believe. Even if elections were held under socialism, how would that change it into something benign? Democratic or not, socialism is government planning of people's lives, in contrast to capitalism—the competitive market economy in which people make their own plans and peacefully coordinate with others through the price system and mutually beneficial free exchange. Periodically casting one vote among many for those who will formulate and carry out the plan would not fix what's wrong with socialism. Even under majority rule, the minority must obey or starve, as the nice Bolshevik Trotsky so charmingly put it. Any individual is a potential threat to the plan and therefore must not be tolerated. Central planning and social cooperation through individual freedom cannot coexist.

Either Mamdani does not know this or he won't acknowledge it. That destroys his claim to care about people. For him, the people are mere stage props (as are the Palestinians). His ideology would oppress them. Despite the democratic sales pitch, this child of the elite aspires to implement the most elitist of oppressive systems. Fanatic or grifter? You decide.